Lefty caller wishes rape on Dana Loesch

So Dana Loesch has been on the cutting edge of this controversy where Virginia is passing a law that requires that a woman must have an ultra-sound before getting an abortion. The left is outrageously outraged, calling this a rape-law and saying that a trans-vaginal ultrasound is like being raped by the Taliban or something. For much more on the back story on this ‘trans-vaginal rape’ law/controversy, read this. Seriously, read it.

So last week on her radio show, Dana suggested that these women who are outrageously outraged over trans-vaginal ultrasounds being like rape, apparently they didn’t have a problem with a trans-vaginal-like procedure that resulted in their pregnancy. HA! Gotta love Dana for calling them out. Here’s the segment from her radio show. I highly recommend listening to it in full:

Now to our outrageously outraged caller. Brenda called into Dana’s show today (Dana was absent today, which really depressed the caller) after a few minutes into the conversation with the substitute host, she basically said she hoped Dana were raped like the women she’s talking down to.

Here’s the audio:

Gotta love the tolerant/civil left, wishing rape on all their enemies.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Is_Sense_Common

    Isn’t an abortion “intrusive and invasive” as our lovely Joyless Behar points out when referring to this procedure? Circular logic continues to astound me.

    • cheezwhizz

      Joy Behar, the hatefilled bigot who walked off the show when it was mentioned that actual taliban killed 3000 Americans on 9/11.
      But the hag has no problem calling a doctor conducting a medical procedure — taliban

  • stage9

    The only rape that is occurring here is that which is happening to my ears every time a radical speaks.

    • Sober_Thinking


  • But going along with this caller’s logic – If every single abortion done by Planned Parenthood is because of rape, then we have a bigger problems with society then I originally thought.

    • cheezwhizz

      So if it is a rape that caused a pregnancy which needs to be aborted with taxpayer’s money ,
      why is the rapist not arrested ? Afterall, the DNA evidence is right there , right ?

      • who says they aren’t?

        • cheezwhizz

          I know about the biggest abortion mill Planned Parenthood and they do the procedures , no questions asked . They never inform police even when they have proof that they are dealing with a very young rape victim

  • destroyer_of_moonbats

    the left have their muslim dictator, free obamacare, high gas prices, abortion on demand and soon to be their student loan bailouts… and they are still unhappy. liberalism IS a mental disorder.

    • There will always be another list of demands, too. If we gave them everything they wanted today, they’d come back and say, “Well, single-payer health care and abortion up to age 3 are great. But they’re really meaningless if you don’t have a home, and a job that pays a living wage, and a way to get to work.” And then housing, work including a $20/hr. minimum wage and a Chevy Volt would immediately be constitutional rights.

    • warpmine

      ……and it’s terminal that is for everyone else

  • How can it be rape? If you are choosing to have an abortion knowing the law, then you consent to the trans-vaginal ultrasound.

    And isn’t the abortion procedure a tad bit more intrusive than a trans-vaginal ultrasound? Is the abortion doctor committing rape?

    • “And isn’t the abortion procedure a tad bit more intrusive than a trans-vaginal ultrasound? Is the abortion doctor committing rape?”

      1) Depends on how far along the pregnancy is
      2) No, because the procedure is performed with informed consent.

      • The trans-vaginal ultrasound is also done with informed consent so it is not rape.

      • Susanna958

        Did the baby consent?

  • PFFV

    “The ends justifies the means” Liberals will say and/or do anything to win, even rape and murder apparently. Show me anyone on the Conservative side that says anything even close to this? Of course there is no one on our side that would say such horrible things like this.

    Obama sure has brought us together hasn’t he? Good grief!

  • mateodh

    Imagine how the unborn child feels…

    • cheezwhizz

      Unborn child don’t feel no pain,
      just ask those frigin vegetarians why they don’t eat meat, they know 😀

  • cheezwhizz

    So lets get it straight from normal language to libberish :
    Normal language —> Libberish
    Abortion woman’s right
    Free abortion woman’s health
    Contraception woman’s right
    Free contraception woman’s health
    Rape sex
    ultrasound rape
    rape victim patient
    doctor taliban
    taliban not our enemy

    • stage9

      you forgot one:

      liberals = morons

  • “So last week on her radio show, Dana suggested that these women who are outrageously outraged over trans-vaginal ultrasounds being like rape, apparently they didn’t have a problem with a trans-vaginal-like procedure that resulted in their pregnancy.”

    Right, just because a woman enjoyed having consensual sex with a partner doesn’t mean that they enjoy having things put in their vagina all the time.

    To claim that people at Media Matters don’t know the rhythm method is pretty ridiculous but whatever.

    At any rate, I find it pretty astonishing that people can rally for “small government” on the one hand and then have no problem with the government mandating that things be put inside someone else’s body on the other. Talk about unnecessary government mandates.

    • We have govt mandates against murder. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. Yes it should be mandated.

    • You find it astonishing that our government is upholding its duty to protect and defend us? Yes, the unborn child is part of “us”.

    • Susanna958

      The whole purpose of the “mandate” is to show the twit, I mean woman, that there are TWO bodies involved.

    • Patriot077

      But for the activist judges who legalized the murder of the unborn, this would not be a topic for discussion. I think the decision would have been far different if ultrasound/sonagrams were available in 1973.

      PP would like all who seek abortion to believe they are disposing of a lump of tissue only. But pictures are telling and they change hearts and minds.

      I’ve posted this on other threads and will share again that I was present and saw my grandson during the ultrasound. I recognized him when he was born.

      • cheezwhizz

        But for the activist judges who legalized the murder of the unborn, this would not be a topic for discussion.
        The problem was that in those days, RBGinsberg had no clue about the issue she was deciding on, because she was told that it was to get rid of the undesireables

        • Patriot077

          Yes. I was aware of her horrifying commentary. Glad she’s not my mother.

          Also the judge who pushed this decision was trying to be popular and in sync with his wife and daughter … and their circle of friends.

    • I’d rather pay for ultrasounds with my tax dollars than abortions. If we even have to pay anything under dearleader’s “care” that is.

      “Just because the woman enjoyed having consensual sex with a partner doesn’t mean” that the rest of us should have to pay for her “choice” to murder her baby either.

      • So then if it’s not taxpayer funded can we eschew the government-mandated vaginal probing?

        • Rshill7

          Where in the law does it say it must be a transvaginal ultra-sound? I don’t think it does. That is simply one type of ultra-sound.

          Patients who are having tumors etc. removed also see those before they choose to remove them. Sounds like simple full disclosure to me. An ultra-sound can be done from the outer belly, an abortion is always invasive. To the baby itself, it is terminally invasive.

          • The law requires that “heart tone” be ascertained through ultrasound imaging. Until about 12 weeks, there is no other ultrasound that is capable of detecting the heartbeat.

            • Rshill7

              “A key fact to remember when using ultrasounds is that a transvaginal ultrasound can detect development in the uterus about a week earlier than a transabdominal ultrasound.” (American Pregnancy Association)


              It looks like you might be wrong danny. Ever had that happen before?

              • Yeah, a whole bunch, and I readily admit it when it happens. In this case, though,

                Fetal development =/= heartbeat. Being able to detect fetal development and being able to detect an actual heartbeat are two different things. Incidentally, my wife is an OB-GYN, I suggest you consider asking one as well if you’re in doubt.

                Even the reference that you’ve cited doesn’t put standard ultrasound until week 8-9. Try reading the rest of the page.

                • Rshill7

                  You said, “after 12 weeks”. That’s what I responded to. The point is, how is that invasive/”rape”, but abortion itself is not? It makes no sense and is another example of liberal theory kicking it’s own booty.

                • NYGino

                  I think they should go a step further and require every “blob” that is to be aborted be given a name by it’s “blob” carrier.

                • I never used the word “rape” and I think that that’s a hyperbolic categorization of the whole issue.

                  Also, I’ve never claimed that the actual abortion procedure, unless it’s done by mifepristone, is any less invasive than any ultrasound, be it transvaginal or not. What I would object to is the notion that the government is mandating a specific medical procedure whether or not a professional determines that it is necessary – and in many cases, it’s not.

                  Talk about government getting in the way of you and your doctor.

                • Rshill7

                  Then you have wasted many keystrokes and have argued nothing.

                • Hrm?

                  We agree that the abortion procedure is equally invasive to the ultrasound procedure. We disagree that the state has the right to mandate a medically unnecessary procedure – this invasive or not – when the attending physician believes it to be unnecessary. Quite frankly, whether or not that procedure involves anything entering the vagina is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned – this case is particularly egregious, but the case would be the same for any procedure determined “medically necessary” not by doctors, but by a bunch of legislators.

                  We definitely disagree on the notion that a woman has the right to determine when, how, and by whom her offspring are born. We also disagree on when life begins.

                  We most certainly disagree that just because a woman has sex means that she should be okay with the state demanding that a probe be inserted into her vagina, as Ms. Loesch argues. Although I disagree with the rape analogy, this is probably where it comes from.

                  So how have I not made any argument?

                • Rshill7

                  …and to further render your entire non-argument moot:

                  “The Planned Parenthood abortion business has created a firestorm of criticism for itself by making the wild-eyed claim that allowing women in Virginia a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child before the abortion is akin to rape.

                  However, new information has surfaced showing the abortion business already does pre-abortion ultrasounds on women to determine the age of the unborn child prior to the abortion — making it so the abortion business, in its own words, “rapes” women already. The question then becomes whether or not women will be allowed to see the ultrasound image or hear the audio of the heartbeat of their baby.” (Weasel Zippers)

                  So, Planned Parenthood already does ultrasounds (plural) before they kill the baby. Selective outrage? Indubitably!

  • I love Dana!!!!

  • Susanna958

    I’m pretty sure the abortion is vaginal too.

    • cheezwhizz

      If the Dems could figure out how to register fetuses to vote,
      Once that happens, studs will be in high demand during the months of September and October in an election year

  • Fish in a barrel. Is there anything more fun than pointing out the flaws in the “logic” of the left? I think not. That is why I could never follow their philosophy. There is no consistency, no sense of order and no sense of proportion. For me, a prog is someone who can ignore all fact and reason and still sleep at night.

  • Yazz55

    Well…according to this liberal extremist perspective, rape, as normal folk would think of the term, just isn’t a crime anymore.

    They’re just doing exactly what they accuse conservatives of. And the deaf, dumb & blind media got their heads buried in the sand as they publish only white house propaganda scripts.

  • Watchman74

    Brenda has attempted to redefine the meaning of the word rape, which apparently now includes ultrasound devices. So if she agrees that rape is wrong isn’t abortion similar? Both acts are one person forcing there will upon another individual.

  • Trust1TG

    Most ultrasounds performed at crisis pregnancy centers are not intra-vaginal.

    This whole deal is not about a medical procedure. The liberal libertines are raising a stink because they don’t want their conscience confronted with the truth and the seriousness and permanency and implications of their ‘choice.’

    Like defense lawyers, they are grasping at straws, any argument that would fly by a progressive judge or a reality show pop culture, that would prevent mandatory ultrasound. They want to prevent being confronted with the fact that they have recklessly, selfishly, wantonly created a human life. They are willing to dispose of this human being, their own child, IF THEY DON’T HAVE TO SEE ITS LITTLE BODY, arms, legs, tiny finger buds, WATCH ITS LITTLE HEARTBEAT, REALIZE THEY ARE A MOTHER, LIKE IT OR NOT.

    SEEING THE ULTRASOUND makes a difference and many women CHOOSE not to kill another human being – THEIR OWN GOD-GIVEN CHILD:

    A child is a gift, a chance to choose to give back, to become mature and unselfish, to learn to live outside oneself, to give a good gift to the world after you are long gone.

    If you do not wish to rear your child, there is a better and healthier choice than killing that child – giving that child the gift of LIFE. Adoption is the best choice for some very young mothers who don’t have parental support. They can go on to school and their child will be reared in a family that desperately wants and will give him/her love and care.

    Abortion is not the healthiest choice. Studies show that abortion is correlated with high risk of breast cancer and mental problems, depression, guilt, suicide, infertility, inability to bond with subsequent children, child abuse, sexual dysfunction, and marriage problems.

    To reject and refuse and extinguish a human life is also a permanent choice. It affects a woman’s heart, mind, soul – eternal realities – that must be dealt with before she will ever truly be at peace again and reconciled to GOD.

    Some apostate ‘churches’ and pastors will tell you otherwise, just as they smile upon extramarital and deviant sex. They are willing to compromise truth to serve appetite, pleasure, ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’. These ‘churches’ should be avoided like the plague. They are imposters and unregenerate deceivers, blind guides and lost in their fanciful fake theologies. They have eliminated the concept of sin and hell, of satan and temptation. Scripture, teaching of the centuries, even the evidence and facts in medicine, research and statistics are not their guide.

    They have helped the socialists, and various agenda groups to create a society that is all about ‘what I want and choose.’ They believe consent and committment are the determinant of right and wrong. They call good: evil and evil: good. They are essentially lawless. (I John 3:4)

    These are the people who are running (really ruining) our country, calling themselves Christians (Obama), Catholics (Pelosi, Sebelius), etc.

    Our US Constitution and laws are only good where they conform to GODs Higher Law and Commandments. We now have laws that enable us to break all of GODs Law and some that would force us to do so.

    Abstinence is the healthiest choice, correlated statistically with the best and healthiest outcomes. This is the choice the lawless liberals refuse to accept. They want us to believe sexual gratification is a necessity and a basic human right and that promiscuity doesn’t matter, the sex and marital status of the persons involved doesn’t matter and that consent is the only arbitor of good, right and wrong – despite the preponderance science, statistical, clinical and Biblical evidence to the contrary.

    That is really what everyone is are fighting and protesting rather than ‘invasive procedure’.

    This is about something much deeper and more permanent than a simple ultrasound.

  • 911Infidel

    The tone of that caller was just typical elitist slime. Tony don’t play that crap. And the screwball might do a little more research and do a little less sliming. Or maybe she just never had any children or maybe she killed them and doesn’t want to face the fact that those aborted young ones were human beings. In other words I detect a little self-loathing on her part; who is looking for a target to blame her own self-loathing on.

  • NCHokie02

    That caller was retarded. I don’t know her name because I barely know who she is but why isn’t she here to answer her “listeners” questions? Idiot

  • Sober_Thinking

    They’ll catch more flies with that honey-tongued sentiment.


    Go Dana!

  • Sober_Thinking

    And the left isn’t apalled at Maobama as he continues to rape America? Hmmm?

  • mike morrison

    If a woman has to have an internal sonogram before the abortion, then what the caller is saying the first procedure is rape, but the second–that ends in a death of a baby–is consentual.

    Ok. Got it.

    (running into wall until I black out)

  • Kordane

    The question shouldn’t be whether the foetus has a heartbeat (an emotional and arguably subjective qualification to say the least), but should instead be about whether the foetus has reached the stage at which it has become an “individual” and therefore endowed with the individual rights which the government must protect. Government is not instituted to protect anything with a “heart beat”; governments are instituted to protect the “individual rights”, and nothing more. Knowing whether a foetus has become an “individual” is therefore crucial.

    The question should then become: What qualifies something to be classified as an individual with individual rights and all the protections that this brings?

    Two major qualifications for being classified an “individual” are:
    1. It must be able to survive (aided or unaided) outside/independent of its mother’s body
    2. It must be capable of developing rationality (ie. that which separates us from other animals)

    At the moment, only human beings are capable of the second one. If some alien species came along that has ratioanlity too, then they’d also have individual rights.

    These two criteria pretty much classify early foetuses (which cannot survive outside of a woman’s body, even with an incubator) as “non-individuals” which lack individual rights and any right to protection by the government. Biologists can objectively determine a cut off point at which foetuses meet the first qualification; this could be the point at which a foetus becomes an individual.

    • Nukeman60

      Two major qualifications for being classified an “individual” are:
      1. It must be able to survive (aided or unaided) outside/independent of its mother’s body
      2. It must be capable of developing rationality (ie. that which separates us from other animals)
      ‘ – k

      Why does #1 necessarily become a criteria for ‘individual’? A fetus surviving aided should not differentiate between inside or outside of the womb. It’s still growing and requires aide through the entire gestation period and also through its youth.

      Many people believe that 1) a sperm cell is not an individual, 2) an egg is not an individual, but 3) a fertilized egg is an individual due to the fact it is growing on its own. It is the moment when God ‘breathed the breath of life’ to endow a soul. Even though it doesn’t appear to be an individual does not then conclude that it is indeed not one.

      • Rshill7

        It looks like Kordane is hanging his entire argument based on definitions that some ultimate genius, who is also above reproach, came up with. It doesn’t look very genius too me. It looks biased and arbitrary as heck, deserving of much reproach.

        The most basic right a human has is life itself. Unborn babies do not enjoy this right.
        Why not? Every person who has ever lived passed through all of these stages of growth. Therefore, if any of those stages is terminated, that process ends a life that would otherwise be able to grow into possible adulthood barring serious congenital, terminal defects.

        Socialism = at least 150 million dead folks
        Abortion in USA alone = 50 + million dead folks

        Lots of women comprise both of these groups of dead folks. A huge percent of the aboted folks are also black.

        Obvious question: Why do lefties hate women and black folks so much, to the point of killing them enmasse?

        • Nukeman60

          Obvious question: Why do lefties hate women and black folks so much, to the point of killing them enmasse? – Rs

          I would love to hear just one LSM pundit ask that question. Just one.

          • Rshill7

            Yep, part of that question would be nice to hear asked to Muslims too. Why do you hate women so much? Are women allowed any freedom or joy at all in Islam? Why is the left complicit with the most grotesque treatment of women in Islam but hyperventilate here about manufactured slights to women that do not even exist?

            They should be drilled daily with these questions. the left and Islamicists. There should be concerted world outcry against how women are treated within Islam. How are they any better than chattel or cattle?

            I could open a nice barbecue pork stand in Iran or Yemen. If it catches on, I could franchise it all across the Middle East. I think it would catch on the first day…catch on fire that is, with moi skewered rotisserie style right above it…minus a head.

        • Kordane

          Quote: “The most basic right a human has is life itself. Unborn babies do not enjoy this right. Why not? Every person who has ever lived passed through all of these stages of growth. Therefore, if any of those stages is terminated, that process ends a life that would otherwise be able to grow into possible adulthood barring serious congenital, terminal defects”

          Just because a foetus has the potential to become an individual does not mean that it is an individual. Government was not instituted to protect the rights of “potential individuals” – It was instituted to protect the rights of individuals, as in ones that actually exist.

          The real horror will come when people succeed in expanding individual rights to non-individuals. Then we will see the rise of “animal rights”, “group rights”, “plant rights”, or evne more absurdly “earth rights”, and so on. The fact that statists and environmentalists are already engaged in this is very telling about the general misunderstanding of the nature and source of rights.

          • Nukeman60

            Just because a foetus has the potential to become an individual does not mean that it is an individual‘ – k

            You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. A fetus doesn’t have the potential to become an individual. It already is an individual. I believe the quote was, ‘ be able to grow into possible adulthood’.

            Big difference and the very basis of your argument. You want to define individual as something other than individual so that you can say something is not an individual. Circular logic. Never works. It’s just confusing to some people.

            Lets see. Premise: 2=3. Argument: If 2=3, then 3 is something other than 3. Conclusion: 3 is not 3. You start off with an incorrect premise to arrive at your forgone conclusion, which is obviously incorrect.

            • Kordane

              Quote: “A fetus doesn’t have the potential to become an individual. It already is an individual”

              Ok, by what objective criteria do you define an “individual”?

              This is the question I have been engaged in answering here.

              • Nukeman60

                No. It’s the question you have been skirting by pre-defining it to define it. I already answered the question. Perhaps reading back might help.

      • Kordane

        If a fertilized egg is an “individual” then by that very definition it should be capable of independence. By independence I mean that it capable of existing as an autonomous being, as in separate from other beings (ie. its mother). This does not mean that it must be capable of surviving “without any aid whatsoever”, since that’s a criteria that most adults don’t even meet! It would be irrational to include “total survival unaided” as a qualifier.

        • Nukeman60

          If a fertilized egg is an “individual” then by that very definition it should be capable of independence – k

          Are you making up your own definition?


          That’s like saying you’re not a human being till you can walk, because humans walk upright. Hogwash. You want an ‘individual’ to be capable of independence, then you give exceptions to being independent. Having it’s own DNA makes the fetus ‘individual’, existing as a separate ‘entity’, not just being self sufficient.

          By independence I mean that it capable of existing as an autonomous being, as in separate from other beings (ie. its mother) – k

          Thanks for finally seeing it our way. A fetus is, indeed, an autonomous being, separate from its mother. That is the problem with pro-abortion people. They think a fetus is just a lump of tissue until it looks like us. By autonomous, I mean able to grow on its own, using the food and sustenence that its mother gives it, to develop into a full person – an individual.

          • Kordane

            Ok you clearly misunderstood my logic from the get-go, since you believe that what I said is “like saying you’re not a human being till you can walk, because humans walk upright” – Even though I’d never say such a thing, because animals can walk too, and by your strawman criteria they’d be human beings too, which they are clearly not.

            Also, haven’t you heard of an umbillical cord? Geez. Hardly separate from its mother now is it?

            • Nukeman60

              So as long as the umbilical cord isn’t severed, you can kill the baby after it comes out because it’s still ‘part of the mother’? Pretty lame.

              You are not going to be convinced, as seen by your twists and turns, and I still believe a fetus has a right to life just like you or I. Lets leave it at that. This is wasting my time.

              Edit: BTW, ‘separate from its mother’ and ‘separated from its mother’ are two totally different things.

              • Kordane

                I didn’t say that the only qualifier for abortion is “so long as the umbillical cord isn’t severed”. I suggest you read my other posts, because you’ve yet again misunderstood my argument.

            • It still has its own unique set of DNA, you idiot!

    • fetus has its own dna (distinctive from the egg and sperm) at the moment of conception.
      seems a pretty good litmus test for individuality to me.

    • 2. It must be capable of developing rationality (ie. that which separates us from other animals)

      A mentally deficient person, or a person who has suffered a head injury or is losing brain function may no longer fit into your “2”. Has that person lost their human rights and can they be terminated with disregard to the fact that they are a person?

      • Kordane

        Rationality is the quality that separates human beings from other forms of life. If we didn’t have rationality then there would be no individual rights since there’d be no way to deal with us, and we would treat each other just like animals treat each other. Mentally retarded and injured people are not like this.

        Unlike animals or plants, all our talent and skills must be acquired. This is the nature of human beings, and that nature does not change just because they have a mental problem or injury. I would argue that it is completely irrational to say “That is not an individual because he wasn’t born as smart as other human beings!” or “That is not an individual because he hit his head and isn’t conscious any more”.

        Besides, this issue is not about mentally retarded people or injured people – This is about the cellular/foetal stages of human life.

    • NYGino

      Obviously then, according to your definition, late term abortion (third term trimester) is murder. Please, justify your thoughts and share with us your insights, why , using your own logic, this isn’t so.

      • NYGino

        Kordane, still waiting for your answer.

        • NYGino

          Still waiting.

          • NYGino

            Kordane, getting real tired so I’m going to bed now, but I’m sure that when I wake up tomorrow morning and fire up my computer I will find, you being the intelligent leftist that you are, a very clear answer to my question. Have a good night, if you can. I know I will.

            • Nukeman60

              Was this the profound answer you were so patiently waiting for?

              • NYGino

                That’s about as good an answer as I could expect. Thank you.

      • Kordane

        I’m not a biologist, so I can’t answer that.

    • K-Bob

      You already tried this in the Rubio thread a while back.

      It does not matter when someone “becomes an individual.” Some arguably don’t manage that trick until late in life, if at all. And everyone knows newborns are wholly dependent on others in order to live.

      You are simply wrong on this concept. And it doesn’t depend on “when life begins” to show it, as I wrote back in that thread.

      • Kordane

        I bring it up because it is right. You say it doesn’t matter when someone becomes an individual, but I would argue that it’s absolutely critical to questions of government involvement in banning abortions, since the government was instituted to protect individual rights, and if a foetus is ‘not’ found to be an individual (for any part of its gestation) then it won’t have individual rights, meaning that it shouldn’t be protected by the government for the time that it is not an individual. If you now say “The government should ban abortions regardless of whether a foetus becomes an individual”, then you are basically advocating that the government act outside the role that the founders intended for it, since you are advocating that the government openly violate the individual rights of the pregnant women. I cannot tolerate such an abuse of government power.

        • K-Bob

          Since we cannot possibly know when to assign the value ‘individual’ to a developing fetus (or even to a live, born infant), we do not have the right or privilege of deeming it to happen at any stage whatsoever. That is an unscientific, random, violation of nature.

          THAT is why your haring off on some track of designating “when” is an exercise in irrationality.

          The pro choice position does not require this foolish “designation” in order to be defended. If it did, it would have no rational basis. The only way to be certain someone is an individual, thereby conferring unalienable rights, would be to see if they are smart enough to understand the concept. Anything less requires the pretentious declarations of men who believe they know more than you do, and who must rely on bafflement, sophistry, the incitement of crowds, and ultimately force to make their position the one which dominates.

          Giving the government the power to make such an arbitrary decision would be an intolerable act of first magnitude.

          Clearly, the issue of whether any agency–from the local family group all the way up to the UN–should have any say over whether a woman carries a fetus to term is entirely separate from the notion of when life begins. Once the “pro choice” community understands this, they will then have the proper grounding to debate the issue.

          Incidentally, the same is true for the “pro life” advocates.

          The fact is, the entire abortion issue was never about when life begins. It is about the clash between two absolutes: Personal Sovereignty of the mother, vs. the fetal Right to Life. It will always be about those two things, even if one posits that the conceptus–at the moment of conception–is fully human.

          Until both sides in this debate fully realize this, no solution satisfactory to either side is possible.

          • Kordane

            You seem to think that being an “individual” depends on the existence of others, who must “see if they are smart enough to understand the concept”. You take this further and argue that we must “assign” the status of “individual” on an entity, before they become one, and then you denounce the idea of doing so, by arguing that we neither have the right nor privilege to deem it so. So we might as well forget the whole thing, right? That’s ultimately what motivates your reasoning here.

            I would instead argue that the status of “individual” is objectively determined by an entity’s nature.

            Why aren’t animals and plants “individuals” – Well, it’s because they lack rationality. There’s no way to reason with them, and there never will be. It’s ‘their’ nature to be like that.

            But then, why are human beings “individuals”? – Well, it’s because we are capable of developing a special characteristic which separates us from plants and animals: “rationality”.

            The other characteristic of being an “individual” is really such an obvious one, because it’s about whether an entity’s nature allows it to survive independent of other entities. No, I’m not talking about whether it can survive 100% unaided by other entities; that would be an utterly irrational criteria, given that even fully grown adults don’t meet it! What I’m talking about is whether the entity can survive being physically separate from other entities.

            Quote: “It is about the clash between two absolutes: Personal Sovereignty of the mother, vs. the fetal Right to Life

            I’d agree with that, but I would argue that the latter is wrong because they ascribe “the right to life” (the source of all individual rights) to a potential individual, rather than to an actual individual.

            I quote Ayn Rand on this issue: “To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable

            • K-Bob

              No, being an individual doesn’t depend on the existence of others. I said the only way you could be sure if someone–or even something–qualified as an individual with unalienable rights would be to see if that person or thing was smart enough to understand the concept. It has more to do with YOUR need to discover their status, not “what their status is.”

              As I stated, we have no other way to find out “what their status is,” and anything not in the category of “finding out if it understands” is an arbitrary, and unscientific designation.

              Because we cannot possibly know the status of the unborn, any declaration of the unborn as “a potential” is a capricious, unscientific thing to do. Ayn Rand made several of these sorts of capricious errors in her life, and in her philosophy. Which is why that quote carries little weight in this debate.

              (Fortunately those capricious errors did not invalidate the core of her philosophy of objectivism.)

              All people have as an excuse for focusing on “when life begins” on the pro choice side of the debate is a motive. The motive being: to add some decorative weight to their logic framework regarding Personal Sovereignty. The weight, being merely decorative, isn’t of much use in solving the problem of the clash of absolutes.

              It certainly hasn’t gained the pro choice side anything since the dawn of Roe V. Wade. If anything, the advances that we discussed last time only work against it.

              It’s time to let it go, and get to work on the real issues involved.

              • Kordane

                I don’t think that the qualifier for whether someone has individual rights is whether they’re smart enough to understand the concept of individual rights. Firstly, there’s no way to know how smart someone must be to understand the concept (30 IQ? 40 IQ? who knows…), and Secondly, I don’t think that it really matters in the first place, since IQ isn’t the sole measure of being an individual. Even “retards” and “idiots” who are at the lowest end of IQ aren’t on the same mental level of animals; our nature predicates us to come into existence tabula rasa, so even at low IQ a human being is still fundamentally different from animals. Animals aren’t rational; they just act instinctively, albeit this doesn’t mean they can’t do clever things. Religious people talk of this difference as how human beings “ate (an apple) from the tree of knowledge” and thus separated themselves from animals by gaining a mind capable of reason/rationality.

                What I’ve really tried to debate here are the fundamental measures of what it means to be an “individual”, and I’ve tried to do so on an objective basis by philosophizing about the differences between an individual and non-individuals. Maybe this is just a bit too deep for a blog thread and that I should stop, but I appreciate your input as usual, K-bob.

                • K-Bob

                  I’m trying to flip your perspective. I’m not making claims about what or who is “an individual” or sentient or however we want to classify. I’m making the argument that YOUR problem and MY problem is “how do WE know if X is or is not an individual.”

                  I think we both can agree that this universe holds a class of beings that are capable of sentience, individuality, and some concept of self, and thus should have conferred upon them a set of unalienable rights. We know this because …we be dem. (At least, I be dem. You be jus’ a window on de monitor!) Because of this, the ones that are members of this class are members whether we wish it so or not.

                  But how do WE know for sure, among all the myriad things living or those not considered lifeforms which ones are like us (in that regard)?

                  That’s the perspective I’m getting at.

                  Admittedly, this gets into those areas of philosophy that irritated the heck out of Ayn Rand–and also me (the old “noumena” business, etc). But I’m afraid it’s unavoidable in this topic.

                  You’re correct. We’re putting the rest of the folks to sleep with this part of the topic. We’ll work on this some more down the line. Thanks for a good dialog on it, Kordane.

    • By that logic, a newborn baby is also not an “individual” because while the baby can breathe outside the mother’s womb, the baby cannot feed itself, clothe itself, or clean itself. This whole “aided/unaided” thing is pure BS.

  • 1970greenie

    Sadly, transvaginal ultasound is not necessary. GT MD

  • siege44

    If any kind of penetrations is rape, then the woman is going to have to be raped by the “doctor” who performs the abortion via the tools he uses.

    Dana is awesome

  • NYGino

    A lot of people voted for Obama to ease their misplaced guilt. They don’t want to see an ultrasound of their living baby because that would add to their guilt, and rightfully so.

    • Rshill7

      Out of site out of mind?

      Some are certainly out of their minds here, but it is not those that want to protect human life. They are the ones displaying what that humanity consists of, such as the preservation of the same.

  • Harley Alderson

    gotta love those peace loving liberals tehy are so comaparable to the muslims who claim they are for peace

  • conservativeBC

    Gee Thanks

  • iirc the law does not specify TV ultrasound, just an ultrasound.
    lot of noise over nothing IMO.

  • DebbyX

    My blood is now boiling, I’m so happy to hear somebody finally lace into these self righteous, left leaning, tree hugging, baby killing loosers.

  • Further proof that America will be destroyed from within by the likes of this despicable caller.

  • K-Bob

    It’s understandable, though, given the left’s obsession with sex, violence and fame. With rape you get the sex and violence in one lurid, awful package, and frequently the victims and perps get lots of press.

    Respect is just too hard for some people.

    • NYGino

      The left still adores Bill Clinton, proves your point.

      • K-Bob

        Oh, man! In spades!